31 January 2005

Iraqi Elections

Iraq has finished the first phase of its ballot count. The voting has been counted a success by some. And who wouldn't like to be optimistic. In the end though, the proof will be in the pudding. And much will have to take place for Iraq to have a system even faintly resembling a democracy. Personally, I don't see how a country can have heavy outside (= U.S.) involvement and still have a democracy. Of course, this isn't just an Iraqi problem but rather a world problem--and one that comes from a failure of people around the world to embrace internationalist ideals and institutions. But it's a problem that won't go away. Undoubtedly, there are CIA agents at this very moment (along with their Iranian, Israeli, and Saudi counterparts) handing envelopes heavy with cash to their favorite political party. Some proxies working for some other CIA agent, meanwhile, are undoubtedly slitting the throat of some other populist politicians that are failing to read Uncle Sam's script. And yet we're told that the simple act of voting is sure to lucidly reflect the will of the Iraqi demos.

My guess is that if the Iraqi demos ever rises up and challenges the American playbook, they'll suddenly find themselves playing for the opposing team, in which case, the numbers won't matter any more than they did when Saddam was quarterback.

Other blogments on the elections include some more optimistic comments at Far East (Japanese), Random Thoughts, and Emigre with a Digital Cluebat. Also check out Dohiyi Mir and Juan Cole.

14 comments:

Cosa Nostradamus said...

.
Yeah.

They're gonna get democracy all over the Middle East. But who's gonna clean it up?

And will we ever try it here?

Nah. There's no money in t.

Check this out:
"Outsourcerer To Transform Homeland Security".

delftsman3 said...

Thanks for the link Karlo.

I find it interesting that you believe that the only way a country can become a true democracy is if they "embrace internationalist ideals and institutions." A meme straight out of the old USSR playbook. So tell me, just how many democratic countries did they engender?

And how many wars/famines/genocides has the UN stopped?

Karlo said...

I have no great love for the U.N. It simply mirrors the current international power structure, which is based on the threat of force and has no justification beyond that.

Karlo said...

As for the USSR, they were nationalist from the get-go. If they hadn't been, there would have been no competition between the USSR and China. Stalin, in particular, was ready to throw every socialist ideal out the window if it meant more power for Mother Russia.
You seem to lump all "liberals" together, thinking that we all support French interests over America, all love Cuba and Castro, and so on. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is I don't have any fondness for nation-states. I don't believe that they channel the interests of their citizens very well. A tribal mentality (and its sequel, nationalism) comes very natural to people but such an ideal fails to bring out the higher possibilities of human beings.

Anonymous said...

Oh please.....all this conspiracy crap from a bunch of losers.....

Karlo said...

I have no great love for the U.N. It simply mirrors the current international power structure, which is based on the threat of force and has no justification beyond that.

Cosa Nostradamus said...

.
Don't waste your time. Those are just parrots.
.

Karlo said...

Polly wants a conspiracy theory. GWACK!

delftsman3 said...

"I have no great love for the U.N. It simply mirrors the current international power structure, which is based on the threat of force and has no justification beyond that."

I hate to break the facts of life to you Karlo, but ALL governments and international alliances are based on the threat of force. Without that threat, they have no power. Our system is not as onerous as, say, a Saudi Arabia or China, in that we allow the general populace more input into government policies, but in the end, it is the threat of force that compells adhereance to our laws and policies.

Karlo said...

A very Marxist idea. The international organizations and so-called democratic institutions are nothing more than a superstructure serving to mask the ugliness of force and the threat of violence. (Marx would add that the violence is inherent in the current economic order.) In the end, I always hope for more. In human endeavor, cooperation is often more productive than competition. It's possible to accept the tyranny of international rights and broad democratic principles in order to enjoy the peace that such "tyranny" would bring.

delftsman3 said...

Tyranny NEVER brings any peace other than the peace of the grave Karlo.

You can tout the Kum-Ba-Yah of the "cooperation of the brotherhood of man" all you want to, idealism is to be admired, but in the end it doesn't take into account human nature. There will always be wolves that will take the sheeple in the end. "Trust, but verify", backed up by force when the trust is broken is probably the closest fallible humanity can come.

delftsman3 said...

"In human endeavor, cooperation is often more productive than competition."

Socialist Germany: unemployment rate of 12.7%
EU Soc. 15 countries: AVERAGE Unemployment rate of 11%
Capitalist America:unemployment rate of 5.4%

Socialism is the idiology of cooperation. The problem with socialism is that it fails to account for human nature. Greed, lust for power,laziness.

Capitalism is the idiology of enlightened self interest.
The problem with capitalism is that it depends on a self-reliant,EDUCATED populace to survive. IF the population ever becomes too dependant on government,or the "let someone else do it for me mentality", the system breaks down.

Both have their merits and their faults.

With the exception of Luxembourgh, any of the EU COUNTRIES would rate lower in GNP than all but 5 STATES in the US. The workers/management/government are all cooperating themselves into the collective poor house.

As Sir Winston Churchill once said: "The purpose of socialism is to spread an ever-increasing amount of misery among an ever-increasing number of people."

Karlo said...

Of course, if we consider the life of the AVERAGE EU citizen and the AVERAGE person in the U.S., the stats tell a different story. Much has been made of the fact that if you take some third-world state such as Mississippi and average out it income, it comes in around that of Sweden. But this is because your throwing in all the U.S. multimillionaires into the pot. In reality, the majority of Swedes are much better off. I often wonder what would happen if we did the same comparision with say Cuba and the Phillipines. Cuba doesn't have a good economy and the people aren't living high on the hog, but if I had to be tossed random into the shoes of someone from Cuba or from the Phillipines, I'd probably pick the former. Cuba's a dictatorship and is backwards but at least there's been some concern for the equal distribution of wealth. If we were suddenly to be tossed at random into the Phillipino population, there's a good change we'd be eating out of dumpsters. From the right's perspective, the Phillipines should be the wealthiest country on the planet having been one of the most colonialized nations directly run by capitalist powerhouses such as Spain, Japan, and the U.S. Everyone in Cuba or in say Bhutan should be starving, but they aren't.

传世私服 said...

传世私服
传奇世界私服
传世私服
最新传世私服
跑跑卡丁车
传奇世界私服
最新传世私服
传世私服
传奇私服
千年私服
最新千年私服
千年私服
新开千年私服
新开传世私服
奇迹私服
变态奇迹私服
奇迹私服ip
千年私服
传奇私服